Amazon LPAdvanced Premium

Hire and Develop the Best (Amazon Leadership Principle)

For senior and above. Interviewers want evidence you raised the bar in hiring AND actively grew specific engineers - with names, plans, and outcomes.

About this theme

Hire and Develop the Best is one of Amazon's 16 Leadership Principles. It states that leaders raise the performance bar with every hire and promotion, recognize exceptional talent, and willingly move that talent throughout the organization. It also calls out developing leaders and taking the coaching role seriously, including building mechanisms like the Bar Raiser program. The principle has two faces: the inflow side (hiring and promoting people who raise the bar) and the growth side (deliberately developing the engineers you already have, even when it costs you in the short term to let them grow or move on). In interviews, this LP is reserved for senior, staff, and management-track candidates, because individual contributors early in their careers rarely have the surface area to hire or formally develop others. Interviewers want concrete coaching and hiring stories with specifics: who you grew, the gap you identified, the deliberate plan you put in place, and the measurable change in that person. They are skeptical of leaders who hoard talent (keeping a strong engineer stuck because they are useful to you) and of those who claim to "mentor" but only ever gave ad hoc advice. The strongest answers show you raised someone to or beyond your own level, or made a hiring call that lifted the team's bar.

What interviewers are evaluating

→Did you raise the bar in hiring - recognizing or rejecting candidates against a real standard, not just filling a seat?
→Did you deliberately develop a specific person, with a plan, rather than giving ad hoc advice?
→Can you name the gap you identified and the measurable change in the person you coached?
→Were you willing to grow talent even when it cost you - letting a strong engineer move on or up?
→Did you give honest, sometimes hard, feedback that actually changed someone's trajectory?
→Did you build a mechanism or set a standard that outlived your direct involvement?

Common prompts

Variations on these are asked at every level. Have a story pre-loaded for at least three of them.

?Tell me about a time you developed or mentored an engineer who grew significantly.
?Describe a time you raised the hiring bar or recognized exceptional talent.
?Tell me about a time you gave someone difficult feedback that helped them grow.
?Give an example of when you helped someone get promoted.
?Tell me about a time you had to coach an underperforming team member.
?Describe a time you let a strong performer move to another team or role.
?How do you identify and grow potential in the people you work with?

Sample STAR answers

Both strong and weak examples, with notes on what makes each work (or fail). Read the weak examples carefully - the patterns they show up are the ones interviewers are trained to spot.

STRONG

Strong: Grew a stalled mid-level engineer to senior in a year

Prompt: "Tell me about a time you developed or mentored an engineer who grew significantly."

Situation: A mid-level engineer on my team, strong at writing code but stuck, had been at the same level for over two years. Two promo cases had failed because his work was scoped narrowly and he never led anything visible. He was frustrated and had started interviewing elsewhere.
Task: As the team's tech lead I genuinely thought he had senior-level ability that was being wasted, so I made growing him an explicit goal - not just retaining him, but getting him to where the promotion was undeniable.
Action: I sat down with him and named the specific gap: he delivered well but never owned ambiguous, cross-team problems, which was the senior bar. We built a deliberate plan together. I handed him the lead role on a gnarly cross-service migration - real scope, with me as a safety net rather than a co-pilot. I had him write the design doc and run the review himself instead of doing it for him. When he avoided a hard conversation with a partner team, I gave him direct feedback that ducking it was the exact thing holding him back, then let him go have it. I met with him biweekly to review progress against the senior competencies, not just task status.
Result: He led the migration to completion - it cut a class of data-sync bugs by about 60 percent - and the design doc became a template other engineers reused. His promo to senior went through cleanly on the next cycle with that project as the centerpiece. He stayed, and within a year he was mentoring a new hire himself.

Why this works

What makes this strong: (1) Named a specific gap against a real bar (senior competencies). (2) A deliberate plan with delegated ownership, not ad hoc advice. (3) Gave hard feedback that changed behavior. (4) Measurable outcome for both the person (promo) and the business (bug reduction), and it cascaded - he then grew others.

STRONG

Strong: Raised the hiring bar by rejecting a 'good enough' candidate

Prompt: "Describe a time you raised the hiring bar or recognized exceptional talent."

Situation: We were three months into a painful search for a senior backend role, the team was overloaded, and there was strong pressure to just fill the seat. A candidate came through who was technically competent but, in my interview, dismissed a junior engineer's clarifying question and showed no curiosity about why our system was built the way it was.
Task: As the hiring manager and the assigned bar raiser on the loop, I had to decide whether to lower the bar under deadline pressure or hold it.
Action: I wrote up specific evidence rather than a vibe: the exact exchange where he dismissed the junior, and two cases where he asserted a design as obviously correct without probing tradeoffs. I argued in the debrief that hiring someone who would lower the team's collaboration and curiosity bar would cost us more over a year than staying open another month would. It was an unpopular call given the team's load. I also turned the search around by proposing we open the role to a strong internal mid-level engineer I believed was ready to stretch, and I sponsored her.
Result: We passed on the external candidate. The internal engineer took the role, ramped in six weeks because she already knew the domain, and a year later was one of the team's strongest seniors. Holding the bar under pressure became a reference point the team cited in later debriefs.

Why this works

What makes this strong: (1) Held a real standard under genuine pressure to lower it. (2) Argued from specific evidence, not gut feel. (3) Recognized and sponsored internal talent - the develop-and-move-talent half of the LP. (4) Concrete outcome and a lasting standard for the team.

WEAK

Weak: 'I always help out junior engineers'

Prompt: "How do you identify and grow potential in the people you work with?"

Situation: There were some junior engineers on my team who needed help.
Task: I wanted to be a good mentor to them.
Action: I always made myself available to answer their questions and reviewed their code when they asked. I gave them advice when they came to me and tried to be encouraging and supportive.
Result: They appreciated my help and I think they got better over time. People saw me as someone who was good with junior engineers.

Why this is weak

Why this is weak: (1) Entirely reactive - answering questions and reviewing code when asked is the baseline, not deliberate development. (2) No specific person, gap, or plan. (3) No measurable growth - 'got better over time' and 'appreciated my help' are not outcomes. (4) Nothing about the hiring bar or moving talent; the scope is far below senior level.

Common pitfalls

×Describing reactive help - answering questions, reviewing code on request - as if it were deliberate development.
×Talking about mentoring in the abstract without naming a specific person, gap, and plan.
×No measurable change in the person you grew (a promotion, a level-up, a new capability they now own).
×Hoarding talent - keeping a strong engineer stuck because they were useful to you - and not seeing why that violates the LP.
×Avoiding the hard-feedback part; growth stories with no difficult conversation tend to read as soft.
×Choosing a story below your level - an IC with no hiring or formal development surface area struggles to meet this bar.

Follow-up strategies

Interviewers will probe. Be ready for the follow-up questions that test the depth of your story.

→If asked 'What was the specific gap?' - name it against a real standard (the senior competencies, the role's bar), not a vague 'they needed to grow.'
→If asked 'What was your plan?' - describe the deliberate mechanism (delegated ownership, a stretch project, a feedback cadence), distinguishing it from ad hoc advice.
→If asked 'How did you measure their growth?' - point to a promotion, a level change, or a concrete capability they now own independently.
→If asked about the hiring half, have a story where you held or raised the bar under pressure, argued from evidence, and accepted the short-term cost.
→If asked 'Did you ever let someone go to grow?' - show you sponsored a move or promotion even when it hurt your team, which is the hardest version of this LP.

Related behavioral themes

Influence

General

The senior+ signal. Can you drive cross-team work, mentor, and build consensus when nobody reports to you - or do you only execute when given a mandate?

Critical Feedback

General

Tested at every senior+ loop and every people-management interview. The signal is whether you deliver hard truths with care - or whether you avoid, soften beyond recognition, or wait for someone else to do it.

Companies that test this theme

Amazon

Senior SDE (L6 / SDE III)

Amazon

Principal SDE (L7)

Practice these stories live

Reading STAR answers is the floor. The interview signal is in delivering them out loud, with follow-ups, under pressure. The AI mock interview probes your stories the way real interviewers do.

Start an AI mock interview →